There have been waves of litigation against cigarette manufacturers. One of the newest waves concerns an argument plaintiffs have recently presented — "regular" cigarettes are defective as compared to "light" cigarettes because "light" cigarettes have less tar and a lower amount of nicotine.
The New York Court of Appeals recently rejected that argument in Adamo v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. The only cause of action on the appeal was the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants had negligently designed "regular" cigarettes when technology was available to manufacture "safer" "light" cigarettes. The plaintiffs had not demonstrated that an equal consumer acceptance existed for "light" cigarettes when compared to "regular" cigarettes. Based on the plaintiffs' failure to do so, the Court agreed with the Appellate Division, First Department's determination that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an essential element of their claim.
Applying the test set out in Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., the Court noted that a cigarette's "utility" is to gratify a smokers' desire for a certain experience. As such, the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate that "regular" cigarettes had the same consumer acceptability as "light" cigarettes.
Note: My colleagues and I wrote an amicus curiae in this appeal on behalf of The Product Liability Advisory Council.
New York Civil Law 